tv [untitled] July 22, 2012 3:30am-4:00am PDT
more leverage to consolidate these spaces and in an overall basis get a better idea. >> in one area it is no more than 6% in that wanted to understand how you arrived at that. is there a situation where you imagine it could be on the floor? >> that is often a negotiated item between landlords and tenants. you will see ranges that are common in the industry. and this is a question of market tolerance. .jk, this was the best negotiated rate we could see. you are correct, they have been around 3 or less, lately. that is a reflection of the market and its demand.
this is consistent with market rates andurrfg increases. >> with the 3% to 6%, what happens with the five-year opportunities to expand? is there an opportunity to renegotiate other conditions of the lease? >> extensions are set forth typically at a market rate reset, depending on the amount of term, or one cpi inflator upon renewal. in this case, bear with me a moment
it does look like we have a cpi increase at the first option renewal, although sometimes that is negotiated depending on whether there has been a negotiation in the market moving in a rising market, most likely that will be to our advantage. supervisor chu: jobs report? >> at the bottom of page 4 of our report, we point out that this third location, the rent would be increased by $1 per square foot to $2 per square foot. that is a 100% increase based on the fair market value, which is based on the analysis of the real-estate division.
we also pointed out that the average per square foot, if you combine all three, would go up approximately 4.3%. we recommend approval of the resolution. members of the public that wish to comment on item number three? seeing no one, public comment is closed. y motion tos forward? y motion tos we can do so without objection. item number four? >> item number four. resolution authorizing the exercise of a five year option to extend the sublease of the 52,200 square foot building at 1440 harrison street for the human services agency. supervisor chu: thank you. john updike, again. >> here be secure approval in the exercise of eight five-year
option for this 52,200 square feet of sub-leased space. we have a map to give you the context of with this location is. the subject is highlighted. they then lease it to the llc of record, who some leases it to the city. we operate cal fresh programs. there are just under two employees at this facility. the city has been a tenant here since 1983. in consideration, they will be carpet in rebate the facility,
an expensive $200,000. the renewal rate is fixed for the entire five-year term at $23.28 per square foot, per year, estimated to be 95% of a fair market rent determined in this case by an independent appraisal analysis and an agreement by the landlord and tenant as to the rate. in that appraisal, the following compare robles, unfortunately rather small on the screen, my apologies, indicate a range similar to what we saw in the last item, very varied. of course, we are at the lower end. on top of that, the city pays for janitorial ah$o and securit, estimated at $8 to $9 per square foot.
i am budget -- again joined if you have any programming questions on this. >> thank you very much. supervisor chu: let's go to the budget analyst report. >> on page 3 we pointed out that the monthly rent in this case would go up 72.4%, which is significant. the state department has stated that it reflects the escalated rent in the south of market area due to the relocation of various technology companies. again, we recommend in this case that you provide for retroactive approval as amended. supervisor chu: let's open this item up for public comment.
are there members of the public that wish to speak on item number four? seeing no one, public comment is closed. supervisor chsupervisor avalos:e to rescind that market tax rate, would that give as a brake on our lease? >> it is interesting, there are many benefits as a result of this in the, twitter, moving -- zynga, twitter, and others moving into that area. there is higher rent, but we can conclude that it is better to have them moving into that area of san francisco. >> it is not just the city experiencing rent increases. there are lots of small businesses as well. but thank you. i appreciate that. wanted to throw that out there. supervisor chu: thank you,
supervisor. but you take action to make sure to say that it is retroactive to 2012? i think it is helpful to see the comparable to the share with us and in thea?p provide a hard copy. might be helpful in the future when we bring leases before us. do we have a motion to except the recommendation and moved it as recommended? ok, done without objection. thank you, item number 5. >> item #5. resolution approving declaration of emergency construction contract of an amount not-to-exceed $319,000 to address a rockslide near south fork adit. supervisor chu: thank you. >> general assistant manager from the public utilities
commission, the proposed resolution would be to ratify the declaration of emergency and approve the emergency contract and eliminate the risk of further rockfall. it is actually an access point into the mountain tunnel down here to san francisco and the rest of the bay area. this is definitely an emergency type situation. we have to maintain access to critical facilities. the cost of work came in at much less than what we had requested the exemption for, now that we are in conformance. i am happy to answer any questions. supervisorn]rfñ chu: let's go te budget analyst report. >> on page four of our report, as shown in the table, the total project costs is now estimated at $150,000.250 -- $150,250, so
we recommend that you reduce that authorized to the $203,000 and that you approve this resolution as amended. supervisor chu: thank you. are there members of the public item number five? seeing no one, public comment is closed. can we except the reduction and not to exceed amount from the budget analyst? ok, we have a motion to except the amendment. the underlying item as amended, is there a motion to send up forward without recommendation -- with recommendation? done, without objection. please provide a copy of the
amended document to r clark. item #6? >> item #6. resolution amending the contract between the san francisco department of public health and community awareness and treatment services, inc., for behavioral health services to $35,699,175. supervisor chu: thank you very much. >> good afternoon, supervisors. this is a request from one of our larger providers. this is for the homeless outreach team and medical respite center. they have currently been awarded services not included in the out years of the original contract, but we are currently in the process of reconfiguring
these services and are requesting approval of this contract to continue these services while we are in the process of reconfiguring. eventually we will bid competitively. i have our director of adult behavior of health services here, if you have any questions about program details. supervisor chu: thank you. mr. rose? >> on page 4 we point out that on page two, this proposed first amendment would increase the amounts in order to continue funding for all the programs. remain the expiration date of
the agreement. when the board of supervisors considered this item, the department of public health testified that they would commit these soft source services under a competitive process in lieu of the continuation of the soft source. it is about $18.9 million, it could be a policy matter for the board. we recommend you approve. supervisor kim: thank you. this question goes back to dph. by the way, i am a fan of taft and i note that the work they do
for the neighborhood and the city at large is important. in the stand the importance of our medical respite in sobering center. i was wondering if you could speak more about what you planned to do. clearly, at the time the sole source contracts made sense. even if bid out competitively, there was a chance the contract would stay with the same provider, just given the kinds of expertise and things that we do being unique, but i was curious, moving forward the board has always expressed support for these programs, as seen through several budget cycles. but could you go further into ensuring that kind of uniformity? >> i would like to confirm your z as this very flexible partner in delivering services to
homeless citizens. also, you might appreciate that our challenge to help the homeless is an ever evolving process and not stagnanta as a practice, doing the same thing over and over. so, in the last few years we have come to realize that these programs, the sobering center and homeless outreach could be better integrated so that they worked with a more clear focus and in coordination with each other. previously they tended to operate as separate programs, a separate kinds of service delivery objectives. so, now we are realizing that there is a group of+pg(÷ indivis who are high it utilizes of multiple systems for which we
thought it would be good to create a model that uses engagement specialist teams that enables the homeless outreach team to work together in concert with our focused effort on this particular group of individuals who have been repeated. that is all the same partnership with the sobering center. with a greater linkage to our intensive case management teams. supervisor kim: the intent is to move to an eventual the competitive process? >> most definitely. it is done in the access of clear program parameters. supervisor kim: i understand that. i have tremendous respect for the organization. i would hope that they would
continue. i would also hope that as a matter of process, these contracts should be bid out competitively. i am excited that it will provide, eventually, a source of transportation that will have a regular route between our service centers, given our challenge providing tokens to all of our clients who need it to circulate between job placement programs, centers, waiting lists to get on shelters. i think that that is going to be a very important change that will benefit our homeless population. >> yes, transportation is a key service. supervisor chu: thank you, supervisor. did i miss it? the gsa when you anticipated going out? >> there is no clear date yet, but 2013 is the fiscal year date when we will implement the
changes. we will fashion the rflp accordingly. but, we share your concern about competitive bidding and do not want to just settle on a contractor without a competitive bidding process. we fully support your sentiment around that. supervisor avalos: this works city-wide, or in a particular part of san francisco? >> most of their work is geared toward the concentration of the homeless. any citizen can call for services in any part of the city. supervisor avalos: the best way to connect with those services is what, 311? >> that should work, and there
should also be a direct line number. supervisor avalos: you probably touched upon it, but if you could discuss what you see as the primary goals of a hot team, is it moving towards working with people who use multiple services? that is always what it has been, in my mind, or is it about getting to the people in the shelters who are homeless? >> right now we are getting -- seeing a need to address those people who are going to our emergency and acute services. that is an effort we are currently trying to implement. but there is a general need for services for all homeless individuals. supervisor chusupervisor avalos. i always thought that the intent
was to look at high users with multiple services. are you saying that the final objective is not being that by the way you are running the service and you have to figure out a new way of doing it? is that what is happening? >> yes, a as well as a focusing efforts toward that goal. supervisor avalos: thank you. supervisor kim:>> seeing that tt necessarily a clear day to day, i was wondering if dph could help me propose an amendment to put these funds on reserves to make sure that they come back with an update moving forward. in can be a reasonable amount. i understand you want to test out the new program and have time to come up with the standards. i want to make sure that we move
forward with having a competitive bid process. is there a dollar that you feel comfortable putting on the budget reserves so you can come back to the committee and update us on the process moving forward? >> we are in agreement with your request. can we get back to you with the amount put on reserve? supervisor kim: maybe we can skip over to the next item and ask you to let us know. the board just wants to hear back from you some time before the end of the year, how things are going and if you anticipate it soon. you have the ability to have a marker. a can be any level, we just want to know what the department
would be most comfortable with. >> madam chair, because there is no funding before you, i would suggest to carry out the intent of the proposed amendment to have the department to report back to the budget and finance committee with what ever about you say to be able to fulfill your intent. >> with the department be fine with coming back in a? -- in may? >> that would certainly be agreeable. yes. be
acceptable, i will make a motion to amend this part of the resolution going forward with recommendations that they come back in 2013. it can be very competitive with of these contracts. supervisor chu: to the department, if you would make sure that you include an edited version to make sure it reflects back to the board in may. why don't we open this item up for public comment? public comment is closed. there is a motion to amend the resolution to require the department to report back to us.
they would be acting as the mechanism to take the nonprofit and for-profit entities to help san francisco participants. this program is in the sixth year to provide an array of primary care services and special patient care services for an estimated 3000 individuals. 3w)h÷it would allow for continud reimbursement to those partners over the two-year course of this agreement. a partner with the city and county not only in the of the san francisco program, but for healthy workers and healthy kids. the managed care entities in san francisco, they have a variety
of expertise in areas around the management of services. we have reviewed the budget analyst report and concur with their recommendations. qfn6v>> why don't we go tou;-$ t analyst report? >> on page 6, will display a budget for the proposed agreement of $31,941,000. we note on page 7 of the report that the department reports that the healthy san francisco enrollment may decline in fiscal year 2013 when the affordable care act is fully implemented. and the not to exceed amounts have been fully extended.
with over $1 million, our recommendation is to amend the proposal for retroactive approval. the proposed agreement for july 1, 2012. i referenced from 31 million -- and we recommend that you approve the resolution as amended. we also recommend you submit a report to the budget and finance committee on the impact of the affordable care act. supervisor chu: i don't remember if you had mentioned it was fine with the department. why don't we open this item up
for public comment? public comment is closed. do we have the motion for recommendations? and the healthy san francisco program prior to december 31, to move for the item as amended with recommendations. and a reminder for the red lion amended version to make sure it is on the calendar on tuesday? can you call items 8 and 9? >> the administrative code regarding board approval. the amount to health services
trust fund. supervisor chu: colleagues, they may look like a couple of simple items before us, but we have catherine and the actuary to explain these items for us. to see what is before us. it requires us to do a survey, the amount that a contribution should be. the item renews the city plan for life insurance and long-term disability payments. they will speak about what the rental rates